Comment on FR Doc # 2026-12725 from Nancy Krieger
AnonymousOpposeIndividual
Summary: The commenter, an individual who has also published concerns in *The Lancet*, strongly opposes the NSF adopting the proposed OMB rules. They argue that the rules would allow political appointees to exert undue control over scientific funding and grant management, potentially prioritizing ideology over evidence-based research.
It is wrong for NSF to seek to implement the proposed OMB rules -- especially regarding political appointees, not peer review, having the final say on what science is funded and also giving political appointees the right to terminate grants at will -- before the OMB has even responded to the nearly 500,000 comments submitted -- 95% critical -- against its proposed rules. I submitted my comments formally opposing the OMB proposed rule -- with a focus on the wrongful imposition of political appointee control over the funding of science and political micromanagement of grants -- so that only political ideology and executive priorities matter, not actual evidence and human need, plus the constraints on publishing imposed by not permitting funds to be used for open access publication. I have also published my concerns in the highest-ranked medical journal in the world -- The Lancet; see: Krieger N. Act now: oppose a new threat to US federally funded work. Lancet. 2026 Jul 11;408(10550):119-120. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(26)01256-0. Epub 2026 Jun 24. PMID: 42341800. https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/NSF-2026-OTR-0001-0002. I accordingly STRONGLY OPPOSE the NSF adopting the OMB proposed rules, which have not yet been approved or finalized and which render the federal government an unreliable and highly partisan partner for scientific research. Both the OMB proposed rules and the derivative NSF rules should NEVER be implemented.